Could a Cave Hyena Have Made a Musical Instrument? a Reply to Cajus G

Arheološki vestnik 67, 2016, str. 401–407 401

Could a cave hyena have made a musical instrument? A reply to Cajus G. Diedrich

Ivan TURK, Matija TURK, Borut TOŠKAN

Izvleček

[Ali je jamska hijena res lahko naredila glasbilo? Odgovor Cajusu G. Diedrichu] Prispevek je odgovor na članek Cajusa G. Diedricha, ki je bil v elektronski obliki objavljen na spletni strani Royal Society Open Science. Diedrichov članek je poln hudih faktičnih napak. Avtor podcenjuje in ne upošteva arheoloških rezultatov in muzikoloških izsledkov raziskovanja neandertalskega glasbila, zato članek lahko povzroča veliko znanstveno škodo. V odgovoru smo se omejili le na komentiranje najhujših napak. Ključne besede: neandertalsko glasbilo, Divje babe I, preluknjane kosti, tafonomija

Abstract

The contribution is a reply to the article written by Cajus G. Diedrich and published online on the web site of the Royal Society Open Science. Diedrich’s article is fraught with factual errors and underestimations of the archaeological and musicological findings. As such, it may cause great scientific damage and should thus not remain uncommented. Only the most prominent errors are addressed. Keywords: Neanderthal musical instrument, Divje babe I, perforated bones, taphonomy

The article by Cajus G. Diedrich (Diedrich 2015) or Neanderthal flute (hereinafter musical instru- entitled “’Neanderthal bone flutes’: simply products ment), from Divje babe I (hereinafter DB) (Turk, of Ice Age spotted hyena scavenging activities on cave Dirjec, Kavur 1995). The article is, alas, fraught bear cubs in European cave bear dens”, published with factual errors and underestimations of the online on the web site of the Royal Society Open Sci- archaeological and musicological findings, all of ence1, reopens the old question of artificial (Brodar, which may cause damage to the two disciplines. Bayer 1928) versus natural origin (Kos 1931) of the We therefore feel obliged to respond, for the sake holes in cave bear bones, which includes the best of both archaeology and musicology. documented find of this kind identified already We originally intended to publish this reply in the in its first publication as a potential Mousterian same journal, i.e. Royal Society Open Science. The editorial board rejected our contribution 1 http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/4/140022 twice, however, on the grounds of it initially being 402 Ivan TURK, Matija TURK, Borut TOŠKAN too long, not concise and not persuasive enough. 2.) the ESR age (50–60 ka) of the cave bear Because of the importance of the reply, we decided to teeth in Layer 8a (Blackwell et al. 2007; 2009), i.e. seek publication elsewhere. The text below presents the cemented upper part of Layer 8, which also the original version of our reply. revealed the musical instrument in the immediate vicinity of two hearths (I. Turk, Dirjec, M. Turk Apart from numerous inaccuracies, the article 2014a, Fig. 14.3; – Turk, Kavur 1997, Figs. 10.10; “’Neanderthal bone flutes’: simply products of Ice 10.11) and few artefacts; Age spotted hyena scavenging activities on cave bear 3.) the increasing/decreasing numerical ages of cubs in European cave bear dens” also contains most other layers (Turk 2007b, Fig. 7.1; – Turk et serious factual errors that can be found in the al. 2006, Fig. 6); following statements made by Diedrich: 4.) the analysis of the sediments (Blackwell et al. 2009; – Skaberne, I. Turk, J. Turk 2015) and 1 – “The first ‘Neanderthal cave bear bone the associated palaeontological evidence (Turk flute’ from the Middle Palaeolithic was believed to 2007b) (animal remains, pollen, charcoal), which have been discovered in the 1920s from Potočka provided a reliable chrono-climatic span of the Zijalka...”(Diedrich 2015, 1). whole investigated profile, with four documented The site in question only yielded Aurignacian hiatuses, from OIS (MIS) 5d to OIS (MIS) 3 (first (Upper Palaeolithic) finds, as has been observed half) with a clearly definable border between OIS 5 from the very beginning of excavations onwards. and OIS 4–3 (Turk et al. 2006, Fig. 5); and The finds include a mandible with holes (Brodar, 5.) the fact that the European sites dating to the Bayer 1928, Taf. 2), which has been interpreted period during which Layer 8a formed (OIS 4/OIS as a ‘flute’, but never collocated with the adjective 3 boundary) thus far only revealed the bones of Neanderthal. Neanderthal individuals, several hundred of them, while the earliest skeleton finds of the anatomi- 2 – “Another juvenile bear cub femur with holes cally modern newcomers date to the second half from Divje Babe I Cave, Slovenia ... was declared of OIS 3. twice incorrectly as the ‘oldest instrument’, a 43140 BP old ‘Neanderthal flute’ from layer 8. This was 3 – “This report of a ‘cave bear femur bone flute’ already contradictory to the results of archaeological was not the ‘oldest’, neither historically, nor by inventory that is well acceptably declared to be solely stratigraphy” (Diedrich 2015, 5). of, again, Cro-Magnon human Late Palaeolithic Certainly not true. The last Upper Pleistocene origin, and not of Mousterian (cf. [28] ... Therefore, Layer 2 in DB, deposited two metres above the there is no evidence for a Neanderthal (Mousterian) find in question, revealed the only positively iden- context ...”(Diedrich 2015, 3–5). “There, where tified Aurignacian level with a typical split-base [pseudo-bone flutes] are dated absolutely (Divje point (Turk 2014b, Fig. 10.1) and fossilized cave babe Cave 1), are without archaeological context bear remains. The numerical age of this level is at all” (Diedrich 2015, 14). determined with four different dates (39.7 ±4.7 ka, None of the above is correct. The date of 43140 26.2 ±5.3 ka, 35.3 ±0.7 BP, 29.7 ±0.3 BP) (Ku 1997; 14 BP (BP means a C date) is not among the roughly – Nelson 1997; – Blackwell et al. 2007; – Moreau 14 one hundred published numerical dates ( C, ESR et al. 2015). These chrono-stratigraphically place 230 234 and Th/ U) provided for the site by charcoal, the Aurignacian level in Layer 2 side by side with bone and tooth samples (Ku 1997; Nelson 1997; central European Aurignacian sites that revealed Blackwell et al. 2009). The generally accepted Mid- famous finds of flutes, such as Hohle Fels and dle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) age of the instrument Geissenklösterle. Coupled with other evidence, this and its association with the European Neanderthal proves conclusively that the musical instrument population has been confirmed by: found in the breccia of Layer 8a is both ‘histori- 1.) the presence of Levallois cores and flakes cally’ and stratigraphically earlier than all other in Layer 8 (M. Turk 2014, Pls. 20, 21; Fig. on p. Palaeolithic flutes. 156) and in the layers above and below it (M. Turk 2014, Pls. 10–19, 22–61) (altogether 13 Mid- 4 – “The bone’s holes on the dorsal side [of the dle Palaeolithic levels that yielded a total of 700 femur-flute] appear not to line up” (Diedrich 2015, 5). artefacts and 21 hearths); No? Take another look at Figure 5: 4a on page 6 of Diedrich’s article. Could a cave hyena have made a musical instrument? A reply to Cajus G. Diedrich 403

Tab. 1: All the cave bear femora from the 265 m3 of sediments in DB 1989–1999 excavations by Ivan Turk and Janez Dirjec. The finds are kept in the National Museum of Slovenia (Ljubljana) together with other skeletal parts and unde- terminable fragments.

MNI Femur Femur Femur Femur shaft Femur jointsa (teeth) NISP complete shaft with hole(s) Fetus & new-born ? 441 13 (2.9%) 410 (93%) 18 (4%) 0 Cub & subadult 4814 1009b 15 (1.5%) 535 (53%) 459 (45.5%) 3 (0.56%) Adult 671 155 15 (9.7%) 38 (24.5%) 102 (66%) 0 SUM 5485 1605 43 (2.7%) 983 (61%) 579 (36%) 3 (0.3%) a Both epiphyses and metaphyses of cave bear cubs are taken into consideration. b Femur with unfused epiphyses.

5 – “Other authors doubted the ‘flute’ and human on ‘Neanderthal flutes’ in a scientifically correct origin however (e.g. [32–38]) or were fighting for manner, perform a comparative taphonomic study pro-arguments (e.g. [39, 40])” (Diedrich 2015, 6). between the sites he deems of key importance that In Endnotes 35 and 40, M. Otte, advocate of the only functioned as dens, on the one hand, and instrument interpretation, is incorrectly cited as the DB, on the other, all with taking into account the opponent, while the opponents C.-S. Holdermann differences and other circumstances. He should and J. Serangeli are incorrectly cited as advocates. also take into account the generally known fact that people in all archaeological periods very 6 – “... Slovenian author (cf. [43]), who misiden- successfully used bones as a source of both food tified: ... (b) the bone, by rotating it upside down and raw material. (see [44]), the 180º rotation of which is corrected The differences that Diedrich observes in the herein (Figure 5a), (c) the general bone taphonomy damage of the long marrow bones of cubs, sub- of cave bear bones ...” (Diedrich 2015, 7). adult and adult cave bears are, in fact, present Diedrich’s rotation of the femur-instrument does throughout time and space, hence also among the not appear to have a sound basis; his proximal- fossil finds from DB. For the Palaeolithic sites in distal orientation is anatomically incorrect and not South-Eastern Alps, Diedrich sees only hyenas supported by argumentation. In our publications, as the main culprit for bone fragmentation. This we oriented the femur diaphysis anatomically cor- simple explanation, however, is problematic, all the rectly, following these criteria: more by comparing it with the reliable statistical 1.) The cross section at the border between the data for the cave bear femora from DB presented diaphysis and the distal metaphysis is markedly here for the first time in Table 1. These data in different from the cross section at the border be- some respects differ significantly from the data tween the diaphysis and the proximal metaphysis. for Diedrich’s German cave sites that, it should be The former is pronouncedly convex in the ventral emphasized, only served as large carnivore dens, (anterior) side, the latter only slightly. The differ- if judged from finds (facts). ence is clearly visible on CT slices of the instrument The 265 m3 of wet-sieved and examined sediments (Blackwell et al. 2009, Fig. 11.7), less in side views, from the central part of the cave (Layers 2–17a) due to the damage. Together with the shape of the yielded, alongside numerous artefacts and hearths, aperture of the foramen nutricium, it is a reliable 73949 isolated teeth that represent the remains criterion for the proximal-distal orientation of of at least 4155 cave bear individuals with milk the diaphysis. teeth (cubs), at least 659 individuals with erupting 2.) The medial edge of the diaphysis is, con- permanent teeth (cubs and subadults) and at least sidering the ontogenetic development stage of 671 individuals with fully developed permanent the femur-instrument from DB, always more or dentition (adults). A single individual can, in a less straight, while the lateral edge is more or less certain phase, have a combined dentition, which curved (concave), which enables a reliable left-right lowers the number of individuals, though cubs determination of the diaphysis. are still markedly prevalent (cf. Debeljak 2002). As for the misidentification of the general bone Considering the representation of complete bones, taphonomy of cave bear bones, we believe that the femora most often chosen to be fragmented Diedrich should, in order to substantiate his claims were those of cubs and subadult individuals (for 404 Ivan TURK, Matija TURK, Borut TOŠKAN other long marrow bones cf. Turk, Dirjec 2007, 337), in order for the endeavour to be successful with not of adult individuals as suggested by Diedrich. minimal effort, the tooth has to be pointy; it is More consistent with his hypothesis on the frag- considerably harder to pierce a bone and split it mentation of the diaphysis of adult individuals are into splinters with a blunt tooth. Splinters can the data on the representation of diaphyses. They then be crushed further. do not, however, offer an unambiguous answer as The 550 femora of cubs and subadult individuals to the cause. Furthermore, such a picture may be from DB included, apart from the femur-instrument, the consequence of a numerical supremacy of cubs only one other femur with one etched hole and over adult individuals. Paradoxically, the highest another one with two unusually placed and irregu- number of diaphyses belongs to fetuses and new- larly shaped holes. All other long marrow bones borns. The representation of meta- and epiphyses revealed no holes. This is a negligibly low number shows these parts to be least represented for cubs for carnivores, even if we add to it the few rare and subadult individuals. The carnivores aiming to bones with tooth impressions. The same is valid break the bone into fragments must first remove for only one musical instrument within the site the epiphyses with parts of metaphyses by literally and the whole of Middle Palaeolithic. However, we chewing them. This is most easily done with the should take into account the possibility of such bones of young individuals. In the bones of the adult and similar instruments being made of perishable individuals from DB, the epiphyses are clearly best materials. Bone as raw material is very rare in represented, which suggests femur fragmentation Middle Palaeolithic contexts, which predominantly by humans rather than by cave hyenas because of yielded lithic objects, while wooden objects sur- two facts. Firstly, the femora of adult individu- vived only exceptionally. Contrary to the Middle als were primarily appreciated for their marrow Palaeolithic, bone often served as raw material rather than collagen (as claimed by Diedrich), in the Upper Palaeolithic, from and including while the femora of cubs were appreciated for the Aurignacian onwards; the Aurignacian layers the collagen. And secondly, the main consumers in Potočka zijalka, for example, yielded over 130 of the marrow throughout archaeological periods osseous points mostly made of cave bear bones. were most probably humans, while collagen and For several German caves-cave bear dens, spongy bone were sought after by carnivores. The Diedrich states 20% of adult bones and 80% of femora of cubs with non-fused epiphyses, which cub bones damaged by large carnivores (Diedrich revealed most tooth impressions on metaphyses, 2015, 9). He does not explain, however, how he were fairly easily split open because of the thinner arrived at such high shares, which are even in- cortical shell in comparison with the femora of consistent with his model of cave hyena activity adult individuals (see experiment findings in Turk on adult and cub bones. The statistics we can et al. 2001). The process of crushing diaphyses provide for DB on that subject are as follows: with the so-called crushing triangle premolars of the 939723 examined bone pieces recovered a cave hyena, which Diedrich does not explain in from 265 m3 of sediment, weighing ca. 2300 kg more detail, involves a hyena or other carnivores and mainly belonging to cave bears, include 396 first puncturing a diaphysis and then splitting (0.04%) pieces with characteristic tooth marks, and crushing it. Having said that, compression as shown on Figure 5: 6a–6d of Diedrich’s article, concentrated in one point can cause the femur which includes rare tooth impressions (for over or any other long bone to crack longitudinally2. 150 European sites of cave hyena, Diedrich states The epiphyses in adult bones actually prevent up to 20% of bone with such damage (Diedrich longitudinal splitting, while a diaphysis without 2015, 14)), 1655 (0.17%) charred pieces, 15 the epiphyses splits as the tooth penetrates deeper (0.001%) pieces with cut marks and 881 (0.09%) into the bone and causes increasing tensions in corroded pieces3. The charred bone fragments in the bone tissue (the ‘wedge effect’). Moreover, hearths and the rare bones with cut marks are conclusive evidence of humans handling the cave bear remains and not just carnivores. Moreover, 2 Experiments on fresh brown bear femora have shown this to be true of all age groups, which means that Diedrich’s model, of different reaction of the bone 3 Corrosion is the consequence of water activity rather belonging to individuals of different ontogenetic phases, than intestinal juices, because it mainly appears on complete from cubs to adults, to crushing with teeth, does not hold bones and even more frequently on dolomite clasts in water in practice. correlation with bone corrosion. Could a cave hyena have made a musical instrument? A reply to Cajus G. Diedrich 405 the frequency of visits to DB by humans, on the without hearths, we argued that the diaphyses of one hand, and cave bears, on the other, estimated cubs were fragmented by carnivores, primarily on the basis of the number of fossil remains and wolves, while the diaphyses of adult individuals artefacts, corresponds well, though this can be were mainly broken by humans (Turk, Dirjec interpreted in a number of ways (i.e. frequent/ 2007, 337–339). Diedrich, to the contrary, believes occasional use of the cave as a den or a shelter in that the diaphyses of adult individuals were sys- a cold/temperate climate, systematic exploitation tematically broken by cave hyenas, while the cub of the remains of perished cave bears, hunting, a diaphyses remained complete because of the more combination of the first and second activities). elastic compact bone; this, however, is at odds Contrary to this, we have no information as to with the numerous splinters of diaphyses of cubs the frequency of the visits by cave hyenas, which and subadult individuals from DB, and with his are not attested in the cave by direct evidence. Figures 6 and 7. Of the whole assemblage, as many as 95% are fragments smaller than 5 cm. There is an even 9 – “Finally, also X-rays of the ‘bone flute’ hole greater amount of micro-fragments, measuring margins did not verify any ‘drilling’ nor any stone from 3 to 0.5 mm and less, which were not col- tool work on the bone” (Diedrich 2015, 13). lected systematically. It is hard to imagine all It does not make much sense to insist on drilled these fragments being made by hyenas and other holes because there are other efficient ways of large carnivores, without the participation of making holes (Turk et al. 2003; 2006) and tools humans and other factors; in micro-fragments suitable for such tasks, also from the Middle Pal- primarily weathering. Another large group of aeolithic levels in DB (Turk et al. 2006, Fig. 12; bones are skulls, the expected number of which – Blackwell et al. 2009). The Palaeolithic visitors is roughly estimated between 100 and 600. Only to DB, like humans in general, drew ideas from 12 skulls (12%–2%) survive complete. In total, nature. Imitating animals, they also could pierce 4541 fragments belong to adult individuals. It is bones in a controlled manner, using simple tools again hard to imagine that all these fragments instead of teeth and the dynamic strength of a were made by hyenas so as to get to the brain. strike instead of the compression. This would Only humans devised an efficient method of also explain the absence of tool marks around the extracting the brains quickly (for DB evidence holes of the femur-instrument and the difficulty in see Turk, Dirjec 2007, 338–339). distinguishing these holes from those eventually made by the tip of a tooth of a certain cross sec- 7 – “The position of holes is mostly on the herein tion. While a human strove not to break the bone studied 19 cub femora, on the ventral side ... This while attempting to pierce it in order to make an area is thinner in the compacta than the dorsal instrument, a hyena would strive to do just that. one” (Diedrich 2015, 10). As for other traces of manufacturing (cut marks), This is not true in the case of the femur-in- they are present either in an indistinct form or strument, as confirmed by computer tomography masked by corrosion and incrustation on bone (CT) (Turk et al. 2006, Fig. 9). The experiments surface. The same holds true of the presumed in making holes by compression into the fresh bite marks not necessary directly connected with femora of the extant brown bear have shown that the holes (cf. arguments in Turk et al. 2001, Fig. most holes were made on the convex ventral side 20; – Turk et al. 2006, 313), which could even be rather than the flat dorsal side (Turk et al. 2001, mistaken for corrosion and mechanical synsedi- Table 2b), which could be related to the different mentary damage by an unexperienced eye. flexibility of the cortical shell (convexity versus flatness) under antagonistic teeth. 10 – “Another argument comes from the oval holes, if attributed to the bone crushing premolar 8 – “ ... all ‘fragmented’ bones [from DB] were hyena teeth their elongation axes are in most cases simply declared as due to ‘sediment pressure’” (Die- parallel to the bone shaft, but only in holes within drich 2015, 14). the shaft.” (Diedrich 2015, 12). This is incorrect; we ascribed most fragments The round to sub-oval shape of the holes on to biotic factors. Primarily on the basis of the dif- the femur-instrument does not correspond with ferences in the typical patterns of the diaphyses the particular shape of the tip of the lower and of cubs and adults in the levels with and those upper third premolar of a cave hyena in cross 406 Ivan TURK, Matija TURK, Borut TOŠKAN section and its impressions as shown by Diedrich, DB is not an instrument, as claimed by Diedrich for example, on Figure 7: 2b – bottom impression (...”neither instrument(s) nor human made at all”. – (see also experimental tooth punctures in Turk et (Diedrich 2015, 14)), is playing the Ode to Joy on al. 2001, Fig. 16d). The sub-oval shape of one of it then not music4? Are we to believe that a cave the holes in the longitudinal axis precludes the hyena could have modified exactly the right bone possibility of a normal bite with carnassials as in such a way that its musical capabilities surpass shown on Diedrich’s Figure 8. The holes on the the uncontested flutes from Hohle Fels and Geis- femur-instrument are also without the impression senklösterle, as well as modern flutes? And why or puncture of the antagonistic tooth that would should we think that Neanderthals could not have correspond with the occlusion of hyena premolars had sufficient knowledge and experience to make (cf. Turk et al. 2001, Figs. 10, 14). Moreover, laws such an instrument? of physics make it impossible to puncture a hole Archaeologists and other experts who advocate under a hole and to make an impression next to the use of the perforated femur as an instrument a hole, either with canines or with carnassials (I. have adequately explained both the technique of Turk, Dirjec, M. Turk 2014b, 260). making holes without leaving tool marks and the technique of playing the flute. They were able to We will conclude by briefly reiterating the most reconstruct both half holes and conduct numerous important facts supporting an artificial origin of experiments on bear femora and on different ver- the holes on the femur-instrument. sions of the instrument. Contrary to that, Diedrich Experiments have shown that hyenas making and others who advocate that the holes were made several holes (which Diedrich does not adequately by carnivores have failed to explain, in a convinc- explain in connection with bites), particularly if ing and irrefutable manner, how a carnivore could, aligned, would certainly split the bone or at least with its canines or carnassials, bite the bone so as crack it (Turk et al. 2001). None of this can be to create the disposition and shape of holes we observed on the femur-instrument. Experiments observe on the femur-instrument. Moreover, they have also shown how a DB human, with readily consistently ignore or underestimate the alterna- available Middle Palaeolithic pointed stone and tive technique of making holes and of playing the simple bone tools, could make such holes on instrument to the benefit of their interpretation. specific bones (Turk et al. 2001; 2003), probably But most counter-productive for the discussion also to gain suitable splinters to make early bone on the earliest known musical instrument is that points, the use of which peaks in the Aurignacian they willingly misunderstand or misrepresent the together with the holes in cave bear bones. In fact, facts on both the object and the site, in spite of the the natural shape of the selected left femur, its exhaustive primary publications on the subject. size and modifications (disposition of holes, their number, straight cutting edge, bell with a notch) are ergonomically perfect features, adapted to a Translation: Andreja Maver right-handed musician (Dimkaroski 2011; 2014). In its range (3.5 octave), the femur-instrument 4 Listen to the reconstructed Neanderthal bone surpasses all known Aurignacian flutes made of musical instrument on YouTube (www.youtube.com/ bird bones (maximum of 1 octave). If the find from watch?v=sHy9FOblt7Y).

BLACKWELL, B. A. B., E. S. K. YU, A. R. SKINNER, I. at Divje babe I, Slovenia. – In: M. Camps, C. Szmidt TURK, J. I. B. BLICKSTEIN, J. TURK, V. S. W. YIN, (eds.), The Meditarranean from 50,000 to 25,000 BP. B. LAU 2007, ESR-datiranje najdišča Divje babe I, Turning points and New Directions, 179–210, Oxford. Slovenija / ESR Dating at Divje babe I, Slovenia. – In: BRODAR, S., J. BAYER 1928, Die Potočka zijalka, eine I. Turk (ed.) 2007a, 123–157. Hochstation der Aurignac-Schwankung in den Ostal- BLACKWELL, B. A. B., E. S. K. YU, A. R. SKINNER, I. pen. – Praehistorica 1, 3–13. TURK, J. I. B. BLICKSTEIN, D. SKABERNE, J. TURK, DEBELJAK, I. 2002, La structure d'âge de la population B. LAU 2009, Dating and Paleoenvironmental Interpre- d'ours de cavernes à Divje babe I. – In: T. Tillet, L. R. tation of the Late Pleistocene Archaeological Deposits Binford (eds.), L'Ours et l'Homme, 51–64, Liège. Could a cave hyena have made a musical instrument? A reply to Cajus G. Diedrich 407

DIEDRICH, C. G. 2015, 'Neanderthal bone flutes': simply TURK, I., J. DIRJEC, B. KAVUR 1995, Ali so v Sloveniji products of Ice Age spotted hyena scavenging activities našli najstarejše glasbilo v Evropi? / The oldest musical on cave bear cubs in European cave bear dens. – Royal instrument in Europe discovered in Slovenia? – Razprave Society Open Science 2/4, 140022 (1–16). 4. razreda SAZU 36, 287–293. DIMKAROSKI, L. 2011, Musikinstrument der Nean- TURK, I., J. DIRJEC, M. TURK 2014a, Prikaz kurišč in derthaler. Zur Diskussion um die moustérienzaitliche ognjišč s poudarkom na obognjiščnih dejavnostih v Knochenflöte aus Divje babe I, Slowenien, aus tech- osrednjem jamskem prostoru / Presentation of fireplaces nischer und musikologischer Sicht. – Mittelungen der and hearths with a stress on hearthside activities in the Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und central cave area. – In: I. Turk (ed.) 2014a, 269–319. Urgeschichte 32, 45–54. TURK, I., J. DIRJEC, M. TURK 2014b, Piščal (glasbilo) DIMKAROSKI, L. 2014, Glasbena raziskovanja piščali 19 let po odkritju. Kritika tafonomske razlage najdbe / od domneve do sodobnega glasbila / Musical research Flute (musical instrument) 19 years after its discovery. into the flute. From suspected to contemporary musical Critique of the taphonomic interpretation of the find. instrument. – In: I. Turk (ed.) 2014a, 205–222. – In: I. Turk (ed.) 2014a, 235–268. KOS, F. 1931, Studien über den Artefaktcharacter der Klingen TURK, I., J. DIRJEC, G. BASTIANI, M. PFLAUM, T. aus Höhlenbärenzähnen und der Knochendurchlochungen LAUKO, F. CIMERMAN, F. KOSEL, J. GRUM, P. CEVC an den Funden aus der Potočka Zijalka und einigen 2001, Nove analize “piščali” iz Divjih bab I (Slovenija) anderen Höhlen. – Prirodoslovne razprave 1, 89–106. / New analyses of the “flute” from Divje babe I (Slove- KU, T. L. 1997, Datiranje kostnih vzorcev iz jame Divje nia). – Arheološki vestnik 52, 25–79. babe I z uranovim nizom / Uranium series dating of TURK, I., G. BASTIANI, B. A. B. BLACKWELL, F. Z. bone samples from Divje babe I cave. – In: I. Turk HORUSITZKY 2003, Domnevna musterjenska piščal (ed.) 1997, 64–65. iz Divjih bab I: psevdoartefakt ali prava piščal ali kdo MOREAU, L., B. ODAR, T. HIGHAM, A. HORVAT, D. je naredil luknje / Putative Mousterian flute from Divje PIRKMAJER, P. TURK 2015, Reassessing the Auri- babe I (Slovenia): pseudoartefact or true flute, or who gnacian of Slovenia: Techno-economic behaviour and made the holes. – Arheološki vestnik 54, 67–72. direct dating of osseous projectile points. – Journal of TURK, I., B. A. B. BLACKWELL, J. TURK, M. PFLAUM Human Evolution 78, 158–180. 2006, Results of computer tomography of the oldest NELSON, E. 1997, Radiokarbonsko datiranje kosti in oglja suspected flute from Divje babe I (Slovenia) and its iz Divjih bab I / Radiocarbon dating of bone and charcoal chronological position within global palaeoclimatic from Divje babe I cave. – In: I. Turk (ed.) 1997, 51–64. and palaeoenvironmental change during Last Glacial. SKABERNE, D., I. TURK, J. TURK 2015, The Pleistocene – L'Anthropologie 110, 293–317. clastic sediments in the Divje babe I cave, Slovenia. TURK, M. 2014, Tipologija kamnitih artefaktov. – In: I. Palaeoclimate (Part 1). – Palaeogeography, Palaeocli- Turk (ed.) 2014a, 153–170. matology, Palaeoecology 438, 395–407. TURK, I. (ed.) 1997, Moustérienska “koščena piščal” in druge najdbe iz Divjih bab I v Sloveniji / Mousterian “bone flute” and other finds from Divje babe I cave site in Slovenia. – Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 2. TURK, I. (ed.) 2007a, Divje babe I, Paleolitsko najdišče mlajšega pleistocena v Sloveniji, I. del: Geologija in pa- leontologija / Divje babe I, Upper Pleistocene Palaeolithic site in Slovenia, Part 1: Geology and Palaeontology. – Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 13. TURK, I. 2007b, Kronologija najdišča Divje babe I / Chronology of the Divje babe I. – In: I. Turk (ed.) 2007a, 159–165. Ivan Turk TURK, I. (ed.) 2014a, Divje babe I, Paleolitsko najdišče [email protected] mlajšega pleistocena v Sloveniji, II. del: Arheologija / Divje babe I, Upper Pleistocene Palaeolithic site in Slovenia, Matija Turk Part 2: Archaeology. – Opera Instituti Archaeologici Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU Sloveniae 29. Inštitut za arheologijo TURK, I. 2014b, Koščeni in rogovinasti artefakti / Bone Novi trg 2 and antler artefacts. – In: I. Turk (ed.) 2014a, 171–203. SI-1000 Ljubljana TURK, I., J. DIRJEC 2007, Jamski medved v najdišču [email protected] Divje babe I: tafonomsko-stratigrafska analiza (Cave bear at the Divje babe I site: taphonomic-stratigraphic Borut Toškan analysis). – In: I. Turk (ed.) 2007a, 279–339. Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU TURK, I., B. KAVUR 1997, Pregled in opis paleolitskih Inštitut za arheologijo orodij in kurišč / Survey and description of palaeolithic Novi trg 2 tools, fireplaces and hearths. – In: I. Turk (ed.) 1997, SI-1000 Ljubljana 119–149. [email protected]